Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2026] SCC 90 (KLR)

Makungu v Ngambona (Claim E96695 of 2025) [2026] SCC 90 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
3 July 2026
GKGladys W. Kiamah
726 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court ordered a borrower to repay Kshs 500,000 because she could not prove her claim of partial repayment with receipts or records.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued for Kshs. 609,000/=, comprising a loan of Kshs. 500,000/= advanced to the respondent and claimed interest of Kshs. 109,000/=, plus costs. The claimant alleged the respondent defaulted on a repayment agreement dated 21/3/2023 executed after a report at Kitisuru Police Station, committing to settle within 60 days. The respondent admitted receipt of the loan but asserted she had repaid Kshs. 380,000/=, alleged the police-station agreement was executed under coercion and duress, and offered to settle Kshs. 120,000/= in instalments. The claim proceeded under Section 30 of The Small Claims Court Act on witness statements and documents produced by consent; only the claimant filed submissions. The court framed one issue: whether the claimant had proven the claim. Applying the balance-of-probabilities standard and Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, and relying on Mumbi M'Nabea and Palace Investment Ltd, the court held the respondent did not deny receiving the loan and failed to substantiate the alleged repayment of Kshs. 380,000/= with any documentary evidence; the coercion allegations were also unsupported. Judgment was entered for the claimant for Kshs. 500,000/= with interest at court rate from the date of judgment. However, the claim for interest of Kshs. 109,000/= failed for want of any agreed contractual interest terms. Costs of Kshs. 35,000/= were awarded to the claimant, and the respondent was granted 30 days stay of execution. The suit thus partially succeeded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant proved the loan claim against the respondent

Holding

Claim proven to the extent of Kshs. 500,000/=; the interest claim failed as unsupported.

Reasoning

The respondent did not deny receiving Kshs. 500,000/=. Her assertion of repayment of Kshs. 380,000/= was unsupported by bank transactions, Mpesa statements, transfer records, acknowledgements or receipts, and nothing in the correspondence indicated any payment. Allegations of coercion and duress in executing the agreement were unsupported. The evidential burden thus shifted to and was not discharged by the respondent.

p. 2
02

Burden of proof on the respondent's claim of repayment

Holding

It was upon the respondent to produce cogent evidence of the claimed repayments; failure meant the loan balance remained owing.

Reasoning

Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act place the burden of proving a fact on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. Applying Mumbi M'Nabea and Palace Investment Ltd, the court held that a party must adduce evidence upon which a court can properly find in its favour; the respondent produced none.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities.
  • Once a party establishes the loan was advanced and unpaid, the evidential burden shifts to the other party to demonstrate repayment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 500,000/= plus interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
  2. 2.Claimant awarded costs of Kshs. 35,000/=
  3. 3.Respondent awarded 30 days stay of execution

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • The Small Claims Court ActSection 30
  • Evidence Act, Chapter 80 of the Laws of KenyaSections 107, 108 and 109

Cases cited (2)

  • Mumbi M'Nabea v David M. Wachira
    [2016] eKLR
  • Palace Investment Ltd v Geofirey Kariuki Mwenda & Another
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 30 of The Small Claims Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Makungu v Ngambona (Claim E96695 of 2025) [2026] SCC 90 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/90/eng@2026-07-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.